Dharmananda Deb
For more than five decades, the people of Barak Valley have sought a permanent bench of the Gauhati High Court at Silchar. The demand has survived successive governments, parliamentary debates and repeated representations by the legal fraternity. Yet the central question remains unanswered – why should access to the High Court continue to impose such a heavy geographical and financial burden on people living in this part of Assam?
For litigants from Cachar, Sribhumi, Hailakandi and Dima Hasao, travelling to Guwahati often means substantial expenditure on transport and accommodation, along with the loss working days. For economically weaker families, repeated journeys can make pursuing a legal remedy particularly difficult. The issue is not simply distance. It is whether justice is practically accessible to those who need it.
The demand has a documented history. On 19 April 1972, the District Bar Association, Silchar, adopted a resolution seeking a High Court Bench in the region. The resolution is recorded in Arup Kumar Dutta’s Gauhati High Court: History & Heritage (p. 165). The demand, therefore, is neither recent nor politically transient. It reflects a longstanding concern about the region’s access to higher judicial institutions.
The issue subsequently reached Parliament. In 1991, a Rajya Sabha discussion concerning a High Court Bench at Dibrugarh also brought attention to representations for Barak Valley. In May 1994, parliamentary proceedings referred to representations from bar associations in Silchar, Karimganj and Hailakandi, while the Union Government cited the absence of the requisite proposal from the Assam Government after consultation with the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court. In May 1997, Rajya Sabha MP Karnendu Bhattacharjee again raised the demand for Silchar, and the government referred to the applicable statutory framework and the lack of a comprehensive proposal.
Parliamentary initiatives continued. Private Member’s Bills seeking a bench at Silchar were introduced in 2000 and 2002. In 2012, MP Kabindra Purkayastha raised the matter in the Lok Sabha under Rule 377. On 10 March 2017, MP Sushmita Dev introduced the Gauhati High Court (Establishment of a Permanent Bench at Silchar) Bill, 2016. These initiatives did not establish a bench, but they demonstrate the persistence of the demand across decades and political terms.
The constitutional principle of access to justice provides an important context. Article 39A directs the State to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and that economic or other disabilities do not prevent people from securing it. It does not, by itself, mandate a High Court Bench at Silchar. Nevertheless, the financial hardship and geographical barriers faced by litigants deserve serious consideration in light of this constitutional commitment.
Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant emphasised the same broader principle on 14 February 2026, while addressing the 11th biennial meeting of Commonwealth Judicial Educators. He said access to justice must move beyond an abstract ideal and produce real outcomes for marginalised citizens, whose faith in the justice system depends on its accessibility, responsiveness and humanity. For people who must travel long distances and spend beyond their means to pursue litigation, accessibility is not an abstract concern. It is a daily reality.
Assam has itself recognised the value of bringing public institutions closer to people. The Barak Valley Secretariat, the Barak Valley Development Department and the creation of co-districts, including Lakhipur, Dholai and Katigorah in Cachar and Ramkrishna Nagar in Sribhumi, reflect efforts to address regional needs through decentralisation. The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Lakhipur similarly brings subordinate judicial services closer to local residents.
These arrangements are not legally equivalent to a High Court Bench, which requires a separate institutional and legal process. They nevertheless illustrate the practical value of reducing the distance between citizens and public institutions. The same principle deserves consideration in the administration of higher justice.
The Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench of the Calcutta High Court offers a particularly relevant example from within another state. Operational from 11 March 2019, it serves Darjeeling, Kalimpong, Jalpaiguri and Cooch Behar in West Bengal, reducing the need for litigants from North Bengal to travel to Kolkata for High Court proceedings. The circumstances of West Bengal and Assam are not identical, but the example demonstrates that bringing High Court proceedings closer to people within a state can be a practical response to geographical disadvantage.
The recent commencement of regular hearings at the Leh Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on 21 October 2026 provides another illustration. Located at an altitude of more than 11,500 feet, the Bench heard five matters before a Division Bench and 60 before a Single Bench on its first day. The initiative seeks to ease the burden on litigants who would otherwise have to travel to Jammu or Srinagar. Although Ladakh’s legal and administrative circumstances differ from those of Barak Valley, the underlying consideration is common: geographical barriers should not unnecessarily impede access to the High Court.
Virtual and hybrid hearings have an important role in modern judicial administration, but they cannot be treated as a complete substitute for a physically accessible court. Technology can reduce travel in suitable cases; it cannot eliminate every financial, practical or technological barrier. Many litigants still need personal consultations with their advocates and assistance in understanding and navigating court proceedings. A courtroom available on a screen does not necessarily make the entire justice system accessible to everyone.
The demand for a permanent bench at Silchar must, of course, be considered within the applicable legal and constitutional framework. Section 31(2) of the North-Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971, forms part of the statutory framework relevant to a Bench away from the principal seat. Establishment requires the prescribed process and consideration by the competent authorities; it cannot be achieved by an administrative announcement alone.
But procedural requirements should lead to a considered decision, not indefinite delay. The Assam Government, the Union Government and the competent judicial authorities need to engage constructively, examine the region’s needs and address the institutional questions involved. After more than fifty years of representations, the people deserve a clear and reasoned response.
The demand for a permanent bench at Silchar is not a request for special privilege. It is a call to make access to the High Court more practical for people living far from Guwahati. Its long history, repeated parliamentary consideration and the continuing hardship of litigants warrant serious and time-bound attention.
Justice must be accessible not merely in principle but in practice. The distance between a citizen and the court should not become a distance between the citizen and justice. A permanent bench of the Gauhati High Court at Silchar would be a meaningful step towards narrowing that gap.
(The author is an advocate practising at the District Court, Cachar, Silchar.)